Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 1065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
K.M. Joseph, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Prashant Bhartiya - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2021
Decided On : 30-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Mamta Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR; Ms. Meera Kaura, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Chand Sharma, Advocate, For Petitioner(s); Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, ASG; Mr. S.S. Ray, Advocate, Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay K. Visen, Advocate, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate, R-2 Mr. Anoop Kandari, Advocate, Ms. Reetesh Varshney, Advocate, Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR; Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent(s)

The court has the discretion to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have reached a mediated settlement and the complainant acknowledges that the case may not be appropriate for further prosecution.

Headnote:
Section 376 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Misrepresentation of Marital Status
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was accused of committing an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on the allegation that he duped the complainant by misrepresenting his marital status. The parties were referred to mediation and reached a settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of their child.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the circumstances and the submissions made by the complainant, who did not dispute that the case may not be appropriate for further prosecution. The court concluded that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Issues: Misrepresentation of marital status, mediated settlement, appropriateness of pursuing the prosecution further
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings was influenced by the parties' mediated settlement limited to the child's maintenance, and the complainant's acknowledgment that the case may not be appropriate for further prosecution.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the FIR and all consequent proceedings were quashed. The order would not prejudice the parties' contentions in any other pending proceedings.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record.

3. Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the accused (appellant) and respondent No.2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document